SVI In-house Seminar/Panel Discussion: Report – April 4, 2019, Prevalent Security Environments and Way Forward

SVI In-house Seminar/Panel Discussion: Report – April 4, 2019, Prevalent Security Environments and Way Forward

 

Authored by: Syeda Saiqa Bukhari & Haris Bilal Malik

Edited by: Dr. Anjum Sarfraz

Strategic Vision Institute (SVI) organized an In-house seminar on “Prevalent Security Environments and Way Forward” on April 4, 2019.The seminar was chaired by Dr. ZafarIqbalCheema, President/Executive Director, SVI. The guest speakers included Lt Gen (R) Naeem Khalid Lodhi (Former Defence Minister, Gov. of Pakistan), Lt Gen (R) Syed Muhammad Owais (Former Secretary Defence Production), AVM (R) Faaiz Amir (VC Air University Islamabad), Vice Admiral (R) Shahid Iqbal (Former Chief of Staff, Pakistan Navy), Brig (R) Samson Simon Sharaf (Political Economist and Anchorperson), Dr. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal (Professor, School of Politics and IR, Q.A.U. Islamabad) and Amb (R) Zamir Akram (Former Permanent Representative to CD/ United Nation, Geneva).

Dr. ZafarIqbalCheema formally inaugurated the session with a warm welcome to the participants and expressed gratitude for their attendance. He particularly thanked,Dr. Ghulam Mujaddid (Dean of Air university), Dr. Zafar Ali (Director General, Strategic Export Control Division (SECDIV), Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Dr. Rizwana Abassi (Associate professor at Bahria University), Khalid Banuri (former director general of ACDA, SPD), Col. Abidi, Dr. Salma Malik (Faculty member of Defence and Strategic Studies, QAU), Khalid Rahim (Member Advisory Board, CGSS) , Saima Aman Sial ( Senior Research Officer, CISS), Sadia Kazmi (Director Academics, SVI), and Dr. Anjum Sarfraz (Senior Research Fellow, SVI).

In his introductory remarks he stated that this In House Seminar is intentionally designed, because we wanted tohave thorough and deeply embedded discussion on the current conflict of February 2019. The way events have taken place and  aftermath. Our desire is to review some of  the conventional military and nuclear doctrines, concepts, and related operational matters. He further said that there are a number of questions which have been discussed in Pakistan in the media by the intellectual circles of both side. But in this seminar we would like to have a more authentic narrative on this ongoing tension. There are two level, firstly the micro perspective of what happened during the crisis and the macro perspective of the implication of the crisis. He further said that there is no doubt in Pakistan‟s credibilityin a conflict vis-a-vis India. He appreciated that the military has responded well conventionally and strategically. Dr. Cheema highlighted that Pakistan has returned from the brink of a„nuclear war‟, this was the first military confrontation between any two nuclear weapons states in the world sincethe end of World War II with the exception of Cuban missile crisis and the Kargil episode.

After the introductory remarks, Dr. Cheema invited first speaker Lt Gen (R) Naeem Khalid Lodhi to speak on “Politico Military Objectives of the Regional and Extra Regional Countries”. Mr. Lodhi highlighted that in every period economic, strategy and geo-politics are interconnected with each other. International framework is not a level playing field based on justice and fair play game. He further said that non-state actors are used by major powers for their political agendas.

He was of view that diplomacy work at different levels such as political and military level. It is not necessary that if one diplomatic channels breaks;the other should break as well. He gave the examples of Sino-Indian and Sino-US relations.

The recent escalation is now an important part of the Pakistan-India history. Thehistorical rivalry has always pushedthem to be involved in some kind confrontation rather than cooperation varying to Kashmir issue, Water issue, Rann of Kutch and Sir Creek etc. These issues have intensified the hatred among them. They have never resolved their issues bilaterally rather they always seek intervention form international community.

The Pulwama attack has again highlightedthe Kashmir issue which is an unfinished agenda of partition and is on UNSC agendaat international forums. In India, Congress leaders started taking about negotiations with Pakistan. Secondly Afghan peace process has damaged the politico-economic investment of India in Afghanistan. Third factor was to get popular vote in the Indian upcoming general elections. CPEC also remained an important factor to be considered. This event also highlighted Indian ambitions to found a ground for a limited conventional war with Pakistan below the nuclear threshold. In the aftermath of Pulwama Indian Air Force violated the LoC, dropped the bombs in Pakistan‟s territorybut did not get desirable results. Whereas Kashmir again came into limelight and domestic pressure for the resolution of Kashmir issue has also increased. International community pressurized both the sides to de-escalate. Pakistan occupied high moral position at international level and India could not achieve its desired political and diplomatic aims. The aftermath of Pulwama has re assured Pakistan‟s Nuclear Deterrence at conventional level and proved it a dominant factor over escalation ladder.

He concluded his presentation by saying that right now India will not do any act of aggression on Line of Control. It will try to boost economic and political pressure on Pakistan through its diplomatic channels.

The second speaker Lt Gen (R) Syed Muhammad Owais enlightened the “Recent Indian Air Strike and Pakistan‟s Air Defence System”. He highlighted the „Air Defence‟ doctrinal positions of Armed Force of Pakistan and also discussed the operational aspects of the Indian air strikes. The air defense system and defence of air space is total responsibility of the Pakistan Air Force. The systems or weapons whether Air based,

Ground Based on Sea Based they all are controlled and directed by the PAF. There are the various systems which are available initially, how to control the weapons all over the country. Previously, it is used to be a manual system that took much of time to engage the target. Now by virtue of the technology, these systems have been digitized and the response time has been decreased. So, PAF remains the ultimate authoritywhen it comes to defending the air space of country whether sea based or ground based.

Another aspect that if any aerial object intrudes Pakistan air space, its warning is given by the air force. Air Force is equipped with the low, mid and long level surveillance all over the borders. And then this warning is passed on to the various departments which are incorporated whether it is in rare areas or in powered area and then based upon the warning, even the control orders for the weapon are passed on or any object engaged. Unless there is a very visible hostile act by particular helicopter or aircraft on that particular position so then that particular weapon or that particular position is given a sort of authorization that they can engage that aircraft otherwise it is all control by the PAF.

Moreover, there are various rules of engagement and these rules of engagements are different for the international border and working boundary, LoC, Siachen area and Kashmir area. All the states followed these rules of engagement according to the operating procedure decided by the air force.

So based on these systems, then the authority is given to any air defence weapon which is deployed on the ground or on the sea whether it can engage or not. Pakistan has a complete procedure for this. These are the standard operating procedures which are digitalized now. The early warning is obtained from the Pakistan Air Force and then it is disseminated to the particularweapon and similarly it is the PAF which gives the order whether the engagement can be carried out or not. Reason behind this is that especially when both the sides are engaged friendly aircraft and enemy aircraft then there is chances of fratricide, to avoid that chances of fratricide there again procedures and it is the air force which gives the authorization to the air defence weapons whether they can engage particular target or not. In this particular scenario of 26 February, the intrusion which took place initially it was not detective and by the time it was detected and the PAF system felt that there is some intrusion, by that time they were gone back, as already mentioned by Gen. Lodhi that there are certain weapons known as stand of weapons that an aircraft or a helicopter now, even they do not need to cross the LoC or international border, by remaining in their own area and by virtue of that standoff weapon, they fired that weapons which can engage the target on the other side. So this is what it happened that while remaining in their area, they intruded, went back and by remaining in their own area, they fired these stand of weapons whether on a particular target or intentionally on that area.But once they were dropped and meanwhile the warning was also obtained and very effective counter action was taken by the Pakistan air force. It was at that particular level that the Pakistanair force  chased their aircraft and shoots them down.

In this case also, air defence weapon which are deployed on ground or on the sea, also have certain limitations, they have the limitation of range, altitude, and engagement. The weapons which are deployed in ten corps areaor in Kashmir area have generally short range weapon, and they can just engage a target about 4 to 5km range. These aircraft which intruded initially included they were strictly high level and wouldn‟t have been engaged in any case by the air defence weapon of ground based. That is how this complete engagement took place and a very timely action took by PAF. This was basically the entire scenario and now of course it has given many important lessons to those who are deployed in ten corps or Kashmir area. There are certain vulnerabilities at the lower level, air force is also cognizant of that army is also cognizant of that. According to him the necessary remedial measures were taken this time and next time such type of venture take place would be responded more rigorously as compare to this time.

The third speaker in this In- House seminar was AVM(R) Faaiz Amir and the topic was „After exchange of Air Strikes; Options for Air Force‟. AVM delivered a very comprehensive and technical talk based on maps and visual images. When we think of the Air Combat or Air Battle our thought process goes the historical legacy which PAF has. The incident that took place on 26th February is a history now. If you look at the war scenario that happened, three things happened. First was that the Indians

struck in Balakot. When Air Force hit a plane area, the six digit coordinates and they are very accurate but when they have to hit a high mountain then the elevation has to be feared. Spice 2000s bombs which were dropped by the Indian Mirages are a general purpose bomb weighting 1000kg they have a kit attached to them which helps in navigation due to GPS capability. But the correct elevation of the target has to be correctly fed in. Why this error occurred from the Indians? There are two hypotheses for that. First it was purposely wrong fed and the second is that the maps of those areas have been made by British long time back in the beginning of the 20th century and at that time; the techniques used to measure height were bit different i.e. one peak to the other peak. That‟s why the height which was fed in the bombs was not correct.

The other thing that happened was obviously the shooting down of the two Indian aircrafts which Pakistan claims. When Indians came in the war was not on it was intense peace time so our assets were not in optimal numbers deployed over there. They came in; they did come in five nautical miles. They dropped them spice 2000 bombs which missed the targets, they violated our territory through bombing and Modi got the advantage on day one. When Pakistan Air Force  you went in they were expecting us at dawn, but we chose the time of 9:30 and at that time they were not mentally prepared. Dropping of bombs by Pakistan resulted in a panic situation for them and they launched their air crafts. There were so many air crafts that they probably created confusion for themselves and it that confusion the Wing Commander Abhi Nandan was not given enough guidance and he violated into our air space and that is where his air craft was shot down. What happened was that the Indian air craft radars has a range lesser than the weapon itself. The third thing that happened was the shooting down of the helicopter by the Indian Air Defence System. We can imagine the comedy of their errors; missing ground targets, losing two Air Crafts, they have shot down their own helicopter. It is so difficult understand the Air Battle today without looking at the environment. The combination was that Indians were having ground based radars deployed along the border; there was AWACS in air having range of 200 Nautical miles, there jets have airborne radars so the pilot inside has to correlate all the information and pick up his own target to shoot it down. The complexity of the Air Warfare will be there tomorrow in the form of convergence of air space and cyberspace.

Vice Admiral (R) Shahid Iqbal gives a brief presentation on „after exchange of Air Strikes: Options for the Navy‟. He started his discussion by mentioning the mission of Pakistan Navy which is to protectmaritime interests of Pakistan. The primary task of Navy is to actually protect the trade. Secondary task is to protect the civilians. It is the responsibility of the Navy to protect the trade of the country. After Indian attempt to intrusion into Pakistani water, a number of question/discussion raised that how does Pakistan actually meet the challenge of Indian navy which is five time larger and have most sophisticated ships. In case of Navy, the coast line which Pakistan has is a great blessing. Pakistan coast line is extending towards west. He highlighted the location of Gawadar and international shipping route which is very important to vise a vie supply of fuel is concerned. It is advantageous that Pakistan is very close to the fuel source whereas the Indian if they try to actually extend this very line from Bombay, they have to actually diverse greater distances is in order to go over there. So, the Indian navy has got a bit difficult proposition vise a vie safeguarding their trade since Pakistan navy has got a superior strategic orientation, because the Indian 70% fuel that comes from Gulf.

So, the Gwadar is a strategically located place from where any ship which is transiting to Gulf and back, is very much within the reach of Pakistan. So, I would reckonthat this very posh line virtually works as anaircraft carrier for Pakistan navy. Because Pakistan have a an air ship at Karachi, Turbat and will raise another international airport at Gwadar, which can fly half a round along the coast but our facility could have been provided by a carrier to a Navy. But if the India they have to operate and they have to actually see the sea control, definitely they will have to bring the carrier but in case of Pakistan, it is not a big issue.

So, with the inauguration of Gwadar, the sea routes have also been shortened. It is an option instead of coming to Karachi and exposing yourself You need not to come to Karachi, you can offload your cargos or fuel at Gawadar which definitely going to take three to five years by the time we actually are able to create those facilities, but nevertheless it is going to be one of the option and accordingly it is going to lessen the burden and the responsibility of the navy which is there at the moment. So, Pakistan Navy is a very balanced force, although it follows defensive- offensive posture i.e.strategically defence and operationally or tactically offensive.

He mentioned that this is one of the good times for the navy that since partition, Pakistan navy never had a new purpose build ships. At the moment the mainstay of the Navy is brand new ships which have been built with the purpose and requirement of Pakistan naval environment. This facility has never enjoyed by Pakistan navy but it is still there. I reckoned that the plan which are afoot also going to bring a lot of addition and augmentation to the naval capital, where the navy try to look into the aircraft vessel called TY 045 alpha, contract has already signed with the Chinese. This is the vessels going to enable the Navy if we want exercise option like tom hack warship. It will indigenous developed Babur missile which could be replicated as tom hackwarship.

In case of Pakistan water, the expense of water is more to South, but as it goes the north it becomes narrow. Which indicates that notwithstanding Indian Navy where we having 102 ships but there are limited ships which can be deployed against Pakistan. Because there is no expense of water available. India maybe having 17 submarinesbut I reckoned at one point in time they cannot actually put more than three to five submarines. Three at along Pakistan coast and two just to resettle those are in a standing role and stuff like that. Likewise the Indian navy has to operate a carrier, that maneuver is going to be fraught with very serious process. Because of water constraint and other depth constrain which are there. So, not withstanding, they are having a two carrier at the moment and they are intended to have the third one. But nevertheless the space which is available is very limited.

He said that geography is the biggest defense for the Pakistan. Pakistan development strategy has been that we should try to have a fleet force which should be dynamic and should have the offensive capability yet it should have an actually offensive punch in the shape of submarine, MPAs which are carrying a missile, which get into the Indian Space and yet they should be able to actually create some issues for the Indian navy. So, geography has been one of the major elements which have been played out by the Pakistan navy in its developmental strategy.

He further spotlight on the incident of March 4, when Indian submarine tried to enter into Pakistani water. Indian is trying to undertake certain actions which are sinking with LIC situation on the sea. Furthermore, India has a very aggressive maneuvers close to Pakistan area of operations and likewise they deployed submarines they had already done one of the submarine have been caught and not we standing it have been said that it have been operating about 60 nautical mile south of Gwadar. So the way the submarine have been caught showed a efficiency and professional ability of the Navy and that also try to actually manifest the other weapons which are being held by the Pakistan Navy, they are delivering whatever had been a reason to acquire that. MPAs are deployed in a manner where they had been able to force a submarine to come out. This happened despite of the fact that the submarine which has been caught was a Scottish submarine which has recently added to the Indian Navy. Nor the submarine the longer the life under water because they get charged under water and have to recharge it in order to submerged them. The conventional submarine that had been put in a very difficult situation and had she not been in a difficult position she would never gone to smudged. This incident provided great opportunity to not standing no harm had been made to that submarine but near actually the recording of the parameters of that submarine is going to be a lot of value to the Pakistani naval force in the future.

Brig (R) Samson Simon Sharaf shared his thoughts on „Pulwama Incident and India-Pakistan tension‟. He used the term fantasia &fire; fantasia is the imaginary rogue state against whom the entire world has to act because its nuclear weapons are likely to fall into the hands of terrorist. In doing that usually the war games which are conducted in the west, actually they try or attempt to play with fire. According to him,

Pulwama is not an incident between India and Pakistan, he see it in entirely differentperspective. He raised a question that how do we describe the recent escalation between India and Pakistan? Not least Pulwama; that could have become the Archduke Ferdinand. An international coalition used the springboard of India. A self-conceived emerging superpower had to rely on others to test Pakistan.

This opens a new debate on nuclear strategy. Coercive credibility failed while India despite a nuclear power created an illogical Fire Break Point. Or, having shaped an environment Pakistan failed to read; was it expeditionary to a longer and deeper game plan by the enemies?

Pulwama was not verses India but it was against enemies. Immediate after Pulwama incident, a peace war game at Dubai held by familiar foreign policy institute of USA, whose CEO is an Indian. In that, terrorists from Fantasia launch a devastating terror attack on the Indian capital. During military buildup militants seize nuclear weapons deployed on the border. Rogue elements in nuclear command likely to share codes. Pakistan recovers the weapons but UN applies strict laws.

Healso discussed Indo-Pacific command previously called the Asia Pacific Command. This shift of name has significance. He further discussed the historical events to build the point his point that this war is creeping from mid-1980. In 1972,the boundary between the Europe Command (EUCOM) adjusted and Pacific Command (PACOM), given the responsibility for entire South Asia and Arabian Sea. In 1983, CENTCOM created for West Asia, Central Asia and Pakistan which was the beginning of the greater Middle East plan. Post USSR withdrawal CENTCOM romance as far as Pakistan was concerned over. And in June 2018, Americans re- designated Pacific Command to Indo-Pacific Command which is very meaningful. He further discusses the Indo-US military strategy. In 2000, President Clinton visits India. From 2010-15, President Obama confirms India as major Defence Partner; Civilian nuclear cooperation including implied Nuclear Umbrella.

In 2016, US signed a logistics defence pact for use of mutual assets and bases for repair and replenishment. In military diplomacy the lynch pin was terrorism. In June 2018, Pacific Command shifts to Indo-Pacific Command which reflects India‟s importance in US Strategic Calculus. He also quoted the Remarks of Secretary of Defence James Mattis that “It is our primary combatant command; it’s standing watch and intimately engaged with over half of the earth’s surface and its diverse populations, from Hollywood, to Bollywood, from polar bears to penguins”.

He concluded that with Pulwama thus, ended the third phase of a futuristically articulated Indo- Pacific command structure. Eastward expansion of NATO and New Middle East cater to this policy. CENTCOM is the Holding Command while Indo-Pacific is the Hammer against fantasia.Tensions run beyond India-Pakistan for Broad Spectrum Dominance in which India is coopted as strategic partner. From mid-1980 to now, unfortunately Pakistan failed to decipher the narrative.

According to him, Pulwama is a tester of a strategy shrouded in mystery. It was an expeditionary phase like a „Fighting Reconnaissance‟ by a New Axis of global power who are against Pakistan. And fighting reconnaissance in military terms which means gathering information through provocation and measured escalation. It was a major violation of international law, jumping many steps of the ladder of escalation. He said that it is too soon to say that India failed to impress the Indo-Pacific Command. Pakistan‟s internal and international political economy since the mid 1980 has been craftily managed towards the end-game.

At the end he disuses the lesson Pakistan‟s threat assessment needs a new perspective.Pakistan‟s war has completed two decades. Right now we are in the window of vulnerability. The worst may yet unfold in second part of the year.Pakistan needs a new plan through other means to counter the geostrategic plans of our adversaries.A systems approach in which building National Power is most important. He said that Right now the economic mess is an opportunity to invigorate home led potential. He suggested that Pakistan should create new strategic and economic allies.

Ms. Sadia Kazmi (Director Academics, Policy and Research SVI) gave a short primer on Indian General Elections2019. She said that Indian elections which will start on April 11 and continue till May 19, 2019, to constituencies of the 17th Lok Sabha. The polls will be held in 7-phases. Nearly 90 crore voters will be eligible to vote for 543 Lok Sabha constituencies across the country. The counting of votes 29 states and 7 union‟s territories will be conducted on May 23, on the same day the results will be announced.

In 2014, Narendra Modi-led BJP had won 282 seats out of 543 constituencies in Lok Sabha, handing out a crushing defeat to the 10-year-rule of the United Progressive Alliance led by the Congress, which was the largest majority by any single political party in last 30 years.

She further discussed phase vise schedule, the number seats in each phase in each state. In Phase 1 on April 11, Andhra (25 seats), Arunachal (2), Assam (5), Bihar (4), Chhattisgarh (1), J&K (2), Maharashtra (7), Manipur (1), Meghalaya (2), Mizoram (1), Nagaland (1), Odisha (4), Sikkim (1), Telangana (17), Tripura (1), UP (8), Uttarakhand (5), West Bengal (2), Andaman (1), Lakshadweep (1); Total 91 seats. In Phase 2 -April 18, Assam (5), Bihar (5), Chhattisgarh (3), J&K (2), Karnataka (14), Maharashtra (10), Manipur (1), Odisha (5), Tamil Nadu (39), Tripura (1), UP (8), West Bengal (3), Puducherry (1); Total: 97 seats. In Phase 3 – April 23, Assam (4), Bihar  (5),  Chhattisgarh  (7),  Gujarat  (26),  Goa  (2),  J&K  (1),  Karnataka  (14),  Kerala  (20), Maharashtra (14), Odisha (6), UP (10), West Bengal (5), Dadra and Nagar Haveli (1), Daman and Diu (1); Total: 115 seats.

In Phase 4 – April 29, Bihar (5), J&K (1), Jharkhand (3), MP (6), Maharashtra (17), Odisha (6), Rajasthan (13), UP (13), West Bengal (8); Total: 71 seats. In Phase 5 – May 6, Bihar (5), J&K (2), Jharkhand (4),  MP (7), Rajasthan (12),  UP (14), West  Bengal (7); Total: 51  seats.  In Phase 6 – May 12, Bihar (8), Haryana (10), Jharkhand (4), MP (8), UP (14), West Bengal (8), Delhi-NCR (7); Total: 59 seats. In Phase 7 – May 19 Bihar (8), Jharkhand (3), MP (8), Punjab (13), West Bengal (9), Chandigarh (1), UP (13), Himachal (4); Total: 59 seats.

Over all the BJP is fighting on 437 seats out of 543 seats. Other parties in National Democratic Alliance parties are fighting remaining seats. Major partners are Shiv Sena on 23 seats, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam on 20 seats, Janata Dal (United) on 17 seats, Shiromani Akali Dal on 10 seats, Pattali Makkal Katchi on 7 seats, Lok Janshakti Party on 6 seats, Kerala allies (BDJS – 5 seats and KC – 1 seat), DMDK is fighting for 4 seats, Asom Gana Parishad fighting for 3 seats, Apna Dal – 2 seats and 8 other smaller parties fighting on 1 seat each. Various organizations carried out opinion polls to gauge voting intention in India. Out of 20 opinion polls carried out, the 10 polls result predicts hum parliament but most of the polls carried out recently in March. They predict the BJP will be holding on the power with slight majority.

She further discussed the state wise opinion polling results. The BJP-led National  Democratic Alliance at the Centre may fall 20 seats short of the magic mark of 272 in the 543- seat Lok Sabha. According to the polling result, conducted between 14th January and 25th January 2019, the NDA may win 252 seats, the Congress-led UPA – 147, others – 144. A total of 15,731 of voters were surveyed. The opinion poll, which was carried out after the airstrikes carried out on Jaish-E-Mohammad (JeM) terror camps across the border, has projected that the NDA will get 264 seats while the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) is expected to get 141 seats. Other parties are expected to get around 138 seats. The India TV-CNX poll showed that the NDA may get 275 seats with BJP leading the pack with 230 seats while the Congress is likely to get 97 seats, more than double the figure of 45 it won in the last Lok Sabha elections.

The numbers have come down slightly for the NDA while UPA has improved if one compares with a similar poll conducted by India TV-CNX survey in the first week of March. The survey then claimed that the NDA could get 285 seats this time, just 13 seats. India TV-CNX survey clearly indicates that the BJP may make a clean sweep of all 26 LS seats in Gujarat, and the BJP-led NDA may win most of the LS seats in Bihar and Maharashtra.

Predictions of India TV shows that in Uttar Pradesh the BJP win 40, BSP 16, SP 18, Congress 4, RLD 1, Apna Dal 1 seat. In Uttarakhand the BJP party wins 3, Congress party will win 2 seats. In Rajasthan, the BJP win 17, Congress party win 8. In West Bengal the Trinamool Congress  win 28, BJP predicted to win 12, Congress to win 1, and LF party will win 1. In Odisha, the Biju Janata Dal party wins 14, BJP win 6, Congress to win 1. In Madhya Prades, BJP will win 21 seats, Congress 8. In Chhattisgarh the BJP party will win 3, Congress 8. In Punjab, it is  predicted that the Congress party win 9, Akali Dal party 2, AAP 1 and BJP 1 seat. In Haryana  the BJP will win 9 seats and Congress will get 1 seat. In Bihar, the BJP party will win 14, RJD party 8, JD (U) party 9, Congress party 3, LJP party 3, RLSP party 1, HAM party 1, VIP party 1 seat respectively. In Jharkhand, the BJP party will win 9 seats, JMM 2, Congress 3. In Gujarat, BJP will win 24 and Congress will win 2 seats. In Himachal Pradesh BJP party will win 3 seats, Congress 1. In Maharashtra, BJP will be successful to win 21, Shiv Sena 13, Congress 7, NCP 6 seats and others will win 1seat. In Goa the BJP will win 2, Congress 0. In Tamil Nadu the DMK party will win 16, AIADMK 10, Congress 5, BJP 1, PMK 2, and other-5. In Andhra Pradesh, YSR Congress 18 seats and TDP will win 7 seats. In Telangana, TRS12, AIMIM 1, Congress 4 seats. In Karnataka, BJP 16, Congress 10, JD(S) 2. In Kerala, UDF will win 14 seats, LDF 5 and BJP 1. In Jammu Kashmir, BJP 2, NC 3, Congress 1. In Assam, BJP will win 5, AIUDF 2, Congress 5, and others party 2 seats. Other North East states the BJP 4, Congress 4, NPP 1, NDPP 1, and SDF 1. In Delhi, the BJP will win 7seats. In other Union Territories, BJP will win 4 and Congress 2 seats.

The 6th speaker of the In House was Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, Professor at School of Politics and International Relations Quaid e Azam University Islamabad. He spoke on „Impact of Present Military Tension on Elections in India‟. He started his presentation by thanking Dr. Cheema by saying it‟s an immense pleasure and a wonderful opportunity for all the participants.

We have heard very impressive presentations regarding the subject especially the military perspective. Let me put my point after this all information which is already shared. We can focus on the India‟s election; we find that there are three major ways of it. First, we need to understand though it is a parliamentary election, but the contest is typical like a presidential election. Prime Minister Modi; there is one man show, vote for one man and that is very much clear. We have witnessed the same thing in the 2014 election as well. In 2014 though Pakistan was flashing at that time in the elections campaign, but more focus was on Economic. He was talking about bringing back money from Swiss banks, economic reforms and many things at that time and those slogans were very attractive because he performed very well in the state of Gujarat as Chief Minister. But this time if we can focus we see that selling the economic reforms for popular vote is difficult. The fact remains that there is 41-45% unemployment rate, the farmers are disturbed he failed to bring back money and most importantly there are corruptions scandals i.e. the Rafale fighter jet deal. Second was his muscular approach, if you can focus his muscular approach it is quite evident that how to cash it in the Indian domestic politics even before 2016. The day he came to power in May 2014, on his first domestic visit he chose Kashmir and in Kashmir he went to Kargil. BJP and Indian media was trying to present Modi as a strong person who can respond to nuclear capable adversary and has courage to take actions in form of surgical strikes. In September 2016 this issue was raised, and it was projected well. Though Pakistan believes it was just a fiction, but that fiction politically worked well with in India for instance you can see the March 2017 Uttar Pradesh (UP) state elections in which Modi was presented in posters as a winner. Again, in September 2018, this narrative became more flashing when India officially celebrated Surgical Strike-A which was even not celebrated in 2017. In December  2018 when there were three state elections BJP lost, Congress won. It was further deterministic factor that whether BJP will give up the Anti- Pakistan and Surgical Strike narrative or not? I think that was the timing which suits Indian military to increase temperature on the border to get more and more defence budget. At that time, they realized that the „Fiction‟ surgical strike will no more work. BJP must project something more in this regard i.e. not a strike but to leave a signature that would be helpful for BJP in the upcoming elections. The payload which their fighter dropped while escaping is that signature for them and from there onwards Indian media played its role to highlight that signature. Majority of the corporate sector in India is supporting BJP which means media is also supporting BJP because media goes after the advertisements. Today Congress is having some financial problems as compared to the BJP. If we see few days ago when India tested Anti-satellite weapon, Modi spoke out by saying that we are capable enough to conduct surgical strikes in the space, and it was projected well. In their military doctrines i.e. Joint Armed Forces Doctrine of April 2017, the 2018 Doctrine of the land war fares the surgical strikes is a major component. The majority class is the lower class which is Hindu and there Modi is playing the concept of „Communal Politics‟ the third variable based on Anti- Pakistan and Anti- Muslim sentiments. In the election campaign the term „Modi‟s Army‟ is used by BJP leaders instead of „Indian Army‟ which is no doubt against the code of conduct of elections, but BJP is least bothered about that. In the aftermath of Pulwama and Feb 2019 episode Modi‟s rating is increased by 5-6% despite that congress is raising the corruption charges in Rafale fighter jet deal. 2019 elections are a one man show while the youth and the nationalist vote will go with BJP. So, this crisis is favorable for Modi to form a government again.

The last speaker of the in-house seminar was Amb (R) Zamir Akram, former permanent representative to CD in UN Geneva. His topic was Review and Validation of Doctrinal Precepts; India and Pakistan. He started with by thanking Dr Cheema and SVI for inviting him for this very important talk and provided him the opportunity to speak in front of very senior and well-informed audience. It is a complex exercise to speak on the evaluation of deterrence doctrines of Pakistan and India because there is a lot of disinformation. It is also very difficult to get down to the bottom of what happened in this past crisis at least from the Indian perspective. The other is that validation of Doctrines particularly between nuclear weapon states is an extremely difficult exercise because there is no practical experience to make such an assessment of validation. So, the exercise must be academic and theoretical, the question there is in the Pulwama experience did Pakistan‟s deterrence strategy worked? But the balance is a dynamic concept and I see this because we need to keep re-evaluating this concept. What are the India-Pakistan doctrines? I know this is a very well-informed room but for the sake of discussion let me just recap. After the 1998 nuclear tests both Pakistan and India declared a deterrence strategy based on minimum credible deterrence. But both sides did not find what minimum is and both sides also recognized that because of the dynamic nature of deterrence this would continue to change. At that time the nuclear capabilities on both sides were focused on counter value target. The one critical difference was that India professed to a policy of „no first use‟ and from Pakistan‟s perspective it was not reliable position because of the numerical superiority of the Indian armed forces. During the Kargil Crisis, the 2001-02 military standoffs and subsequently in the aftermath of 2008 Mumbai attacks the numerical superiority of Indian Military did not work due to the Pakistan‟s credible deterrence. India‟s „Cold Start Doctrine‟ (CSD) failed to find out a ground for limited conventional war against Pakistan. India threatened for a massive retaliation in case of Pakistan‟s response based on full- spectrum deterrence countering India at conventional, tactical and strategic level. In this background, the 2016 surgical strikes should be seen and then more importantly 2019 crisis. The fact remains that both sides went beyond a certain point and the Indians could have bombed any number of targets Pakistan‟s response were strange in this entire crisis. The lessons which I think we have learnt are; there were chances of further escalation both in terms of air strikes and naval advancements. Despite all the Indian planning that has gone at the operational and strategic level Cold Start was not activated. On the other hand, Pakistan consciously avoided nuclear weapons realizing how the situation can turn into a nuclear exchange. The other lesson is the international reaction; there was international pressure but mostly on Pakistan not to respond. It was only after when Pakistan has responded and demonstrated that it can use its conventional capabilities after that the pressure started coming from the US and other western powers to deescalate, the pressure was not there before the Indian attack. In my view Russia and China played a positive role since the beginning of the crisis calling for restrain and de-escalation. The US UK and France have brought the 1257 resolution in the UNSC. They have also taken up to FATF which comes under Chapter VII and sanctions could have been imposed on Pakistan but the Chinese veto remined the fact. The future scenario is that Pakistan needs to reassess no first use‟ and enhance its capabilities including the SLBMs, and Cruise Missiles. At the same time Pakistan needs to be more proactive both in the political and diplomatic fronts.

 

Observations and Question/Answer Session

 

Air Cmdre (R) Khalid Banuri; former DG ACDAgave his observation, will there be a second round of this discussion, I hope it will be held and for that I will suggest keeping the same speakers and audience so that this discussion goes forward and gets into some concrete title. The underlying issue of how it‟s Kashmir focused; one general observation is that several of the Pakistanis commentators will continue to use the terrorist attack analogy and it‟s a big issue.

I personally use Kashmiri resistance as a reaction to this, but several Pakistanis have used the word „terrorist attacks‟ for Pulwama incident and that plays into the 1267 kind of resolution. The second point is we all know, and I think I would precisely refer to this if you look at any Pakistani leadership speech at the General Assembly every year there will be a reference to Kashmir and there will be reference to the significant efforts that are ingredients to all the right things that’s what all what we do. The Feb 2019 escalation brought the attention of the entire world on to us, this window of complete attention to South Asia. Pakistan is limited to when the nuclear war threat is diminished then they will forget about you, they will go back to the 1267 etc. This window needs to be used in some way to bring Kashmir back which Modi has tried in unwittingly done to himself to bring it back to having in a quick time frame, some meetings in the UN about Kashmir and this is where everyone should be talking about the Kashmir issue. We need to also think of how to do deal with the narrative of terrorism and what do we do? A big question I think is where is the money if we need the new things that we do, or do we do with our economy? Well in my view, the Air Force, despite all these examples that AVM Faaiz Amir gave us about how it went, and you know, he kind of gave us the idea of what to look for the in the future the Air Force will need new equipment, the Navy will need some, space will need a lot as well, I have obviously talked about this aspect. Where’s the money for this if we will just invest in this? How do we plan for this? My reaction on the Air Force thing is that in the sense of contingency handling for years the Air Force train for these possibilities. When India started to talk about a Airspace dominance it was focused on creating local air superiority, the significant lessons of Indian military decision making and the navy getting detected using the kind of submarine toady and launching MiG 21 into this environment. A quick observation on the reference to Indo-Pacific terminology was introduced purposely at the British Institute, IISS Shangri-La Dialogue last year and Modi was the keynote speaker there. Interestingly, this dialogue happens every year in the summer and this time initial information that has come out for the dialogue refers to Asia Pacific. It will be very interesting to see if UK is kind of trying to balance this. On Indian elections the general perception that is being injected by some supposedly nuclear neutral people is that there is still a possibility of Modi minus BJP, lesser majority from the list of votes, but possibility of another Prime Minister My sense is different. I think, you know, this is a situation where he will be able to come back and my takeaway from this whole discussion is we need to strategize now for Modi in case if he wins with whatever majority that doesn‟t matter. On the media thing there is this issue of the faith, but there is an interesting clip of somebody called Ariya Vidya, an Indian guy who has floated this idea of the planned false flag operation. Indians have now asked these guys very active probably lives in US is an Indian, he’s been talking about that it was planned. They will only be a balance of whether Congress can collaborate with the rest of the non BGP parties.

Attiq ur Rehman Lecturer International Relations NUML asked a question to Gen Naeem Khalid Lodhi regarding the Non-State actors.  As a student of  IR what I learned from the literature before using or associating anything to the Non-State actors, the states and their leaders decide whether they are going to own them or not on the one hand on the other hand, they adopt very comprehensive strategy to present them to the international community. My other is addressed to Brig Simon, when we see the Indian Foreign Relations Indians has signed 12 to 13 Civil Nuclear agreements with the different states. Besides that, India has developed strategic relations with 30 states. So, what are the suggestions for Pakistan if the government of Pakistan decides to search its alliances in the international system beyond China? Thank you.

Gen Lodhi responded by saying that I referred to the world powers using non-state actors, but I never implied that Pakistan should also use them. If you use these non-state actors, you must use them wisely; you must establish the deniability and you should be able to deny if you are not doing it. You also have seen that world powers are not using their own people to carry such activities. So, you must be very careful if you really want to use this instrument.

Brig (R) Samson Simon responded as we need to understand, MNCs, brands, Corporations, NGOs, Business Cartels, media all these are defined in non-state actors not now but for almost 50 years ago. Once we talk of a non-state actor we’re thinking of terrorist organization what about the other non-state actors? I personally feel all of them have been unleashed against Pakistan. Secondly, wo are our allies? well, the Axis that I mentioned the activities which were going on in Oman and Iran at that time certainly I am not very confident about the Arab Axis so, you understand who our allies. China and some other countries but most of all we are a country with less allies.

Air Cmdre (R) DR Ghulam Mujadid Butt, Dean Aerospace and Strategic Studies Department Air University addressed his question to Gen Lodhi. No nation often opts for war because it is supposed to achieve something like a policy or it is the continuation of policy by other means. We need to learn more on this very aspect that why did India choose to use an aspect of war against Pakistan? Why the relationship between two nuclear states i.e. Pakistan and India has come to a stage where response to a happening is for sure a response from Indian against Pakistan?

Gen Lodhi responded by saying that in my opinion the immediate reason is Kashmir, but the long-term reason is the hegemony which India wants to enforce in this region and now it is being supported by US. There is a plan for this region in which India fits as a policeman and for that purpose that hegemony cannot be enforced until and unless all the entities in this region have accepted this notion.

Dr Zafar Khan Asst Professor Strategic Studies Department National Defence University asked question to Brig Samson Simon is about India as I haven‟t aware about the nuclear umbrella when it comes to India. Is there any treaty or conditions between India and US in this regard? My other question is addressed to Amb Zamir Akram, how do you see Indian Ambitions in near future? In five to ten years‟ time

Brig Samson Simon was of view that when the draft of civil nuclear deal was signed between US and India, at that time probably Ashley J. Tellis was working in the US embassy as an American Citizen. That was the time when they deliberately and consciously moved towards a nuclear deterrence on papers. If you see the preamble to the civilian nuclear agreement it is written in the end preemptive retaliation, attack on one will be considered as attack on other. Secondly, India wants to go to very high state of nuclear readiness and they think they are in an illusion that they can carry out limited conventional conflict under a nuclear shadow because Pakistan did it in Kargil. Dr Cheema added his observation that as a matter of fact there is nothing like nuclear umbrella which refers to an attack on one is considered as an attack on the other is mentioned in the preamble of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal.

 

Responding to Dr Zafar‟s second question Amb (R) Zamir Akram said obviously India do not possess this capability at present. They certainly don’t have the numbers of nuclear weapons according to some people number of Pakistan‟s nuclear arsenal is greater than the Indian. Whether this is true or not that is another thing, but they certainly don’t have that number of nuclear weapons that they could carry out a disarming strike without using nuclear weapons, but they don’t have the capability to do that because of few reasons which include; our nuclear assets are dispersed in such a way that they can survive any kind of attack. The second is that Indian BMDs are still not that much at par to counter the threat or our nuclear attack i.e. our cruise missile. I think that we are not there yet but what is important is we need to understand how Indian thinking is evolving? The recent ASAT test is pointer in that directions because of Indian have militarized the outer space as far as Pakistan is concerned. India once they have the advanced Anti-ballistic missile system they cannot be assured that some weapons from Pakistan will get into India.

Mr. Saud Bangash; Pakistan Businsess Council I just want to introduce a few elements from the economic perspective. Obviously, I have an observation and the question; I will go for the question first which is addressed to Amb Zamir Akram and then the observation. I think geo- politics wise one element that I was thinking during discussion is that; What is the goal of the Afghanistan settlement discussions happening in connection with Pulwama. Could Pulwama be another tactic for pressurizing Pakistan to gain some strategic goals in the Afghan peace settlement process? Obviously, it could be argued as the end game or the transition game that’s been happening now. How would that be the case? If so, of course, we succeeded in reversing that. You know and pray perhaps the flaw that was there. Shouldn’t have been the other way we would have been we’ve been at this point on the negotiating table.

In terms of comments I will take another two to three minutes based on economy because that is my subject. There are some critical elements as I see it from the economy side to be able to gain some economic advantage over the span of next five to six years. We need to gain more security in terms of our access Iron ore. To ensure that we have an engineering future in engineering space, we can make our value chain competitive. That is one element that we’re missing I hope thinkers around the tables would shed some thoughts on that. We have reserves of iron ore of course this ties in with the Afghan question whether we can get access Let’s see.

General Naeem Khaldi Lodhi responded by saying I draw my assumptions based on timings it was a multi-pronged attack on Pakistan because talks are going on between US and Afghan Taliban, Kashmir issue was getting attention. United States and India were on same page for several reasons but they have their own objectives. When you see all the things going parallel; like what happened in Iran, the Pulwama attack, Afghan peace talks are not getting succeeded; FATF is currently hot issue, whereas Pakistan is in talks with the IMF. All these things are running parallel not by chance.

Mr Safdar Jamil; Retired Naval Officer addressed his question to Gen Lodhi, as many speakers have mentioned that the current crisis highlighted the Kashmir issue, but after the 1971 we have lost our right to go to UN. Dr Cheema gave his observation that if you read the text of Simla Agreement the article I says nothing in this agreement is in violation of the

charter of the UN so, we have not surrendered our right to go to UN. The second article of the Simla agreement is specifically on Kashmir which says that it is an outstanding dispute between India and Pakistan and needs to be resolved considering the Article I and by bilateral efforts or any other mutual agreed mechanism.

 

Cdre (R) Dr Anjum Sarfraz; Senior Research Fellow SVI addressed his question to AVM Faaiz.  It is a general perception that our Air DefenceSystems in Balakot area where the Indian aircrafts dropped the payloads are weak. Indian aircrafts came to Balakot, dropped payload and manage to escape.

 

AVM Faaiz Amir responded by saying that he thinks confusion came from DG ISPR‟s remarks in which he said that the Indian air crafts have jettison their payloads. I think that was too early to give such remarks without thorough evaluation, because jettison is a technical term. You jettison your load to run away from place just dropping your load which will not explode and escape because you are being intercepted. In this case, I think it was  the wrong statement that created confusion.

India claims that their jets came 05 nautical miles inside, they were intercepted, and they dropped their load and went away. Technically usage of incorrect term jettison was wrong; there is no doubt in the international media and in our understanding of things the way these happened. Indians employed their weapons. They did not come over Balakot; possibility is that, because I said that we were in a state of tension at that time,our radars may or not have picked them because there are always problems of detection in hilly terrain. Radar coverage is present in that area, but the issue lies with the detection due to difficult terrain.

CoI (R) Zawar Abidi; Senior Research fellow CISSsaid I will just ask a very straight question. We wanted to you have the daylight hours for our intervention or engaging the target. Don‟t we have the capability of night engagement? The other thing is the ISPR briefing they said we remain inside our territory and then engaged the targets. Then what was compelling Indian Air Force to come into our territory and then we have engagement with them?

AVM Faaiz Amir responded by saying that we do have night capability, the design of things goes like this that you have general purpose bombs in which you have GPS kits and they go under the glide to the target much beyond the normal range of the iron bomb, you could have used those night kits as well. But here the purpose was probably not to escalate, take a video which is possible only in day light time of the target and to project it on media.

 

At the end Dr Cheema, President & ED, SVI thanked the speakers and the audience for their active participation in the In House Seminar.

 

Download in PDF




ArabicChinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchRussianSpanishUrdu